HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Mojocvh said:
Amazing how they got the ski jump welded on so quick.
Is it a mod for an asian customer??
Amazing how effective a ski jump is, a simple addition that gave massive gains to the harrier in terms of max take off weight and should go some way in reducing some of the negative effects of choosing the F35 variant with the worse range and payload of the three.Is it a mod for an asian customer??
A lot of the renders and such are quite tricky to think of in relative terms due to the sheer scale of the project and how clean they often are, like the type 45's the renders showed very clean lines and no details while the final versions once decked out with all the details of a working ship (markings, weapons, railings etc.) are much easier to appreciate in terms of size.
With the rate the blocks are going together with a bit of luck we will have what actually looks like a ship in just a few months.
With the rate the blocks are going together with a bit of luck we will have what actually looks like a ship in just a few months.
Godalmighty83 said:
Mojocvh said:
Amazing how they got the ski jump welded on so quick.
Is it a mod for an asian customer??
Amazing how effective a ski jump is, a simple addition that gave massive gains to the harrier in terms of max take off weight and should go some way in reducing some of the negative effects of choosing the F35 variant with the worse range and payload of the three.Is it a mod for an asian customer??
Mojocvh said:
And a LOT more "worse off" try 5g max for starters...
According to lockheed martin-F-35A 9 g, F-35B: 7.0/7.5* g, F-35C: 7.5 g
- payload variations, iam personally presuming that's due to wing loadings
''The F-35B also loses the ability to pull some Gs compared to the conventional USAF variant. The STOVL can only pull 7G compared to 9G for the F-35A and 7.5G for the F-35C. Tomlinson explained that this is not a result of any trade-off made for improved short field performance. “There’s no reason we can’t make a 9G STOVL airplane”, he said.
Tomlinson explained, “Because of the stealth and sensors, the Marine Corps and Navy weren’t interested in more than 7G and 7.5G for their F-35 versions. The Marines and Navy have never been enthusiastic about a 9G capability. It’s not required for their mission. To get more G, you need to beef up that structure and that adds weight. The USAF made the trade-off for the 9G capability.”
Other than the reduced G-limit, in conventional flight the F-35B handles almost exactly like the F-35A, Tomlinson explained. The F-35B retains the same outstanding low-speed, high angle of attack handling qualities as well as the same incredible acceleration as the F-35A. “You struggle to tell the difference between the CTOL and the STOVL in the cockpit,” Tomlinson said, adding that test pilots are trained to notice even minute differences in aircraft handling qualities. Tomlinson noted that while the F-35B’s lift-fan causes a visible bump in the aircraft’s outer mold line, the only cue in the cockpit is a slightly different wind noise. “STOVL only applies below 10 thousand feet and below 250 knots,” Tomlinson notes. ''
Another source-
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air...
Although its very unlikely that any airframe asides from prop stunt planes ever see anything close to max ratings due to the massive shortening of the airframes lifespan it would cause.
Also all those figures re: ranges are taken from a standard runway take off, the ski jump fitted to the invincible (6 deg?) gave the old harrier an extra 1000lb to its max take off, its unknown what effect it could have on a f35.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/74403...
remember men, always have your hard hats on, they are the thing between you and a flying 600t piece of flight deck.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/74403...
remember men, always have your hard hats on, they are the thing between you and a flying 600t piece of flight deck.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/74403...
Godalmighty83 said:
Mojocvh said:
And a LOT more "worse off" try 5g max for starters...
According to lockheed martin-F-35A 9 g, F-35B: 7.0/7.5* g, F-35C: 7.5 g
- payload variations, iam personally presuming that's due to wing loadings
''The F-35B also loses the ability to pull some Gs compared to the conventional USAF variant. The STOVL can only pull 7G compared to 9G for the F-35A and 7.5G for the F-35C. Tomlinson explained that this is not a result of any trade-off made for improved short field performance. “There’s no reason we can’t make a 9G STOVL airplane”, he said.
Tomlinson explained, “Because of the stealth and sensors, the Marine Corps and Navy weren’t interested in more than 7G and 7.5G for their F-35 versions. The Marines and Navy have never been enthusiastic about a 9G capability. It’s not required for their mission. To get more G, you need to beef up that structure and that adds weight. The USAF made the trade-off for the 9G capability.”
Other than the reduced G-limit, in conventional flight the F-35B handles almost exactly like the F-35A, Tomlinson explained. The F-35B retains the same outstanding low-speed, high angle of attack handling qualities as well as the same incredible acceleration as the F-35A. “You struggle to tell the difference between the CTOL and the STOVL in the cockpit,” Tomlinson said, adding that test pilots are trained to notice even minute differences in aircraft handling qualities. Tomlinson noted that while the F-35B’s lift-fan causes a visible bump in the aircraft’s outer mold line, the only cue in the cockpit is a slightly different wind noise. “STOVL only applies below 10 thousand feet and below 250 knots,” Tomlinson notes. ''
Another source-
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air...
Although its very unlikely that any airframe asides from prop stunt planes ever see anything close to max ratings due to the massive shortening of the airframes lifespan it would cause.
Also all those figures re: ranges are taken from a standard runway take off, the ski jump fitted to the invincible (6 deg?) gave the old harrier an extra 1000lb to its max take off, its unknown what effect it could have on a f35.
I cant see the point in making a decision like that at this moment of time, there is still a massive project underway that you will want the workers to focus on and the small possibility of scots deciding on independance the future of the yards up there will be under much scrutiny.
This seems to do nothing but slow down progress on the PoW which might be the only thing the government is interested in as they hate the idea that the RN may end up with something useful.
This seems to do nothing but slow down progress on the PoW which might be the only thing the government is interested in as they hate the idea that the RN may end up with something useful.
Article said:
Following this news, the Ministry of Defence asked Admiral Sir Robert Walmsley, a former chief of defence procurement, to look into the supercarrier programme.
Wiki said:
Robert Walmsley was born in Aberdeen in 1941 and was educated at Fettes College in Edinburgh.
Wow, he's a Scot, what a surprise, nothing like an un-biased view.I'm not going to get in a pissing contest about the difference between the yards, we all have a job to deliver and slagging each other off achieves f
k all.doogz said:
This is the UK government you're talking about. Shoot now, ask questions later 
You're right, that would be the sensible approach, but it's not what we're hearing.
I thought it was more "never resolve a difficult issue today if you can push it off to another parliament when it might be some other parties problem".You're right, that would be the sensible approach, but it's not what we're hearing.
One effect of massive projects like this and the planes to go on them is that delaying anything to save money is self-defeating, the longer any issue goes on for the more money it costs.
'We have delayed project X 3 years to save 100 million'
3 years later-
'what why does project X now cost 300 million?!'
Because this isn't the second hand car market you have had people sat around for years now with massively increased development costs and general inflation + tech price inflation, well done stuff now costs more.
Anyway back to the carriers and such, not the politics and idiot in charge of the week.
A fairly recent PDF from the folk making the ships-
may PR in PDF format
'We have delayed project X 3 years to save 100 million'
3 years later-
'what why does project X now cost 300 million?!'
Because this isn't the second hand car market you have had people sat around for years now with massively increased development costs and general inflation + tech price inflation, well done stuff now costs more.
Anyway back to the carriers and such, not the politics and idiot in charge of the week.
A fairly recent PDF from the folk making the ships-
may PR in PDF format
jimmyjimjim said:
doogz said:
This is the UK government you're talking about. Shoot now, ask questions later
You're right, that would be the sensible approach, but it's not what we're hearing.
I thought it was more "never resolve a difficult issue today if you can push it off to another parliament when it might be some other parties problem".You're right, that would be the sensible approach, but it's not what we're hearing.
All of the UK defence shipbuilding industry would be a nice present for Scotland, wouldn't it?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff